Tulsa accountant sentenced

[Demosthenes]

Accountant sentenced in tax fraud


By DAVID HARPER World Staff Writer
7/31/2008
The Tulsan, who made some unusual claims during his trial, says he was singled out for his political views.

A Tulsa accountant who was found guilty in April of nine felonies for reporting false information on his federal income taxes was sentenced Wednesday to three years and five months in prison.

Robert Steve Miles, 65, received the maximum possible punishment from U.S. District Judge James Payne, who issued a warrant for Miles' arrest earlier in the day after Miles failed to appear for his sentencing hearing.

Miles, who was in the tax-preparation business for about 30 years, was arrested by the IRS at his Tulsa office and was brought into court in handcuffs while wearing a T-shirt and shorts.

He tried to explain his failure to appear earlier in the day by saying that he was surprised that his case was not transferred to the "Cherokee-Wampanoag Supreme Court," as called for in pleadings he filed recently in federal court in Tulsa.

Miles, who represented himself at his April trial, claimed in his closing argument that he was being singled out for prosecution because of his political views. On Wednesday, he said, "I don't believe I have done anything wrong."

At his trial, he periodically managed to get some of his views about government, the courts and the tax system in front of the jury. At various points he seemed to be arguing that tax returns aren't "documents" and that "zero" isn't really a number.

In an April 3 filing, Miles claimed that "any correspondence sent to Robert S. Miles etc. or to a ZIP CODE AREA will be returned and will constitute a direct and deliberate attempt to infringe My religious beliefs and to Expatriate Me and Convert My Sovereign Status to a subject, serf, person and slave and to the secular humanism, commercial religion of government."

At an April 4 hearing, Payne ordered a psychiatric or psychological examination for Miles.

The results of that report were sealed, although Payne wrote in an order filed April 21 that the examining doctor thought Miles was competent to stand trial.

Miles told jurors that he had no intent to violate the law in January 2006 when he mailed his federal income tax returns for the years 1996 through 2004.

On those tax returns, Miles reported that he had "zero" total income or business income.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Kenneth Snoke said Miles' income from 1996 to 2004 was not exactly clear, but he told the jury that "it certainly wasn't zero."

The judge used a tax loss of $256,316.93 to help arrive at the sentence.

[Famspear]

He tried to explain his failure to appear earlier in the day by saying that he was surprised that his case was not transferred to the "Cherokee-Wampanoag Supreme Court," as called for in pleadings he filed recently in federal court in Tulsa.

Ahhhh.... the old "transfer my case to the Cherokee-Wampanoag Supreme Court" tactic we learned so much about in law school! Haven't seen that one in years. Still works the same as it used to.

Miles, who represented himself at his April trial, claimed in his closing argument that he was being singled out for prosecution because of his political views. On Wednesday, he said, "I don't believe I have done anything wrong."

Wellllllll, why didn't you say so before?!!??!!. Bailiff, release this man immediately! What a huge misunderstanding!

At various points he seemed to be arguing that tax returns aren't "documents" and that "zero" isn't really a number.

To which I respond that federal income taxes aren't really a "burden" on those who pay them, and that stuff you use to pay taxes isn't really "money." So, when you pay taxes you're not using your own "money," and it's not "burdensome" anyway.

Oh, happy day!
Oh, happy day!
I define my problems away!

In an April 3 filing, Miles claimed that "any correspondence sent to Robert S. Miles etc. or to a ZIP CODE AREA will be returned and will constitute a direct and deliberate attempt to infringe My religious beliefs and to Expatriate Me and Convert My Sovereign Status to a subject, serf, person and slave and to the secular humanism, commercial religion of government."

To which I reply that any statements from the defendant that contain the words "ZIP CODE" and "Sovereign" will be deemed to be full admissions of guilt under the little-known "Attakapas Corollary" to the "Transfer My Case To The Cherokee-Wampanoag Supreme Court Doctrine."

Go to jail; do not pass go; do not collect $200.

Next case!

[Famspear]

At various points he seemed to be arguing that tax returns aren't "documents" and that "zero" isn't really a number.

I forgot to mention another aspect of the "Attakapas Corollary" to the "Transfer My Case To The Cherokee-Wampanoag Supreme Court Doctrine" -- which is that the digits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 also are not considered to be "numbers." The Attakapas Corollary is really tricky, and its use should not be attempted in court, except under the guidance of experienced practitioners.

[Famspear]

I forgot to mention another aspect of the "Attakapas Corollary" to the "Transfer My Case To The Cherokee-Wampanoag Supreme Court Doctrine" -- which is that the digits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 also are not considered to be "numbers." The Attakapas Corollary is really tricky, and its use should not be attempted in court, except under the guidance of experienced practitioners.

Which brings me to the point that some tax protesters may well try to make at some point. Namely: Robert Steve Miles, like Peter Eric (Blowhard) Hendrickson, lost his case because he didn't argue his own theory in just precisely the right way.

[ASITStands]

I believe Miles was an associate of Blackstock who promoted "claim of right."

His was also the first case brought to the attention of Pete Hendrickson as a criminal case using returns filed in the 'Cracking the Code' manner. I believe there's a 4852 exhibit.

[ASITStands]

Docket 41, Affidavit of Income Tax Non-Liability, at point 10: "Affiant has no income tax liability for the current year (see attached tax return and Form 4852)."

[LPC]

At various points he seemed to be arguing that tax returns aren't "documents" and that "zero" isn't really a number.

My understanding is that "zero" wasn't recognized as a number in European societies until about the 1200s.

So he might have had a good argument, but it was about 800 years too late.

[grixit]

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!
APPLES ARE ORANGES!